There being 6:30 on uh April 23rd, we'll start the zoning board of appeals off with the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with mass general law chapter 38 section 20F this meeting is being recorded. This is a hearing a continued hearing on
application of Derek Ogles and Daniel Rays for a finding that construction of a 20x 20 elevated deck edition attached to the existing dwelling with roof structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing
non-conforming use. of the property neighborhood is mandated by zoning bylaw article 523. Property is located at 231B Tickle Road, Westport, Mass. and shown on assessor's map 20 lots 70A and 71A. Now, I'm going to read
this again. It's a finding that construction of a 20 by 20 elevated deck addition attached to existing dwelling with roof structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the
neighborhood. That is all we are going to be talking about today. You can sit down for a minute because I got a bunch of other things for you. Uh where was I? Uh and and and uh attorney Blake uh uh you know, prompt me
if I'm wrong. What we've all what uh uh according to our our our lawyer, what it what what it means by detrimental is how does it affect safety, park, you know, you know, that kind of thing. It it does not have to do with
the aesthetics of the building. Uh the kind of sliding they use the you know that it's it's not an aesthetics thing. It is a it's more in in the realm of safety and parking and you know hazards and things like that.
Uh two things I want to talk about before we get going. I gave everybody a lot of latitude at the last meeting because I wanted to hear everybody's voice on this matter. We went far beyond the scope of this, but I think it was important that we all hear everybody.
That's not happening tonight. Tonight, we are going to focus on what this petition is about. We are not going to deviate from that except for I do want to hear from Ralph an overview of the project. But when we hear from Ralph, Ralph, I want to give an overview of the project and then I
want you to focus on again what this petition is about, which is what we call the rear deck. It's essentially the deck facing the water. Uh the other thing I want to make clear is and I want to make that clear to all the board members as well as everybody in the audience. We are not going we
have responsibilities and authority for zoning of this of this uh particular uh area. We are not the building inspector. So we do not have authority nor should we even attempt to uh to utilize you
know any aspects of of potential u building issues as part of our our discussion. That is not our responsibility. That's the responsibility of the building inspector. Conversely we are not the conservation commission.
So we are not getting into conservation issues. Although I I I will let uh Cynthia speak for a minute because she has uh she has talk at the concom. So in this meeting we are going to focus on what we are responsible for and what
this permit is all about and we and if anybody starts to talk about anything other than that they're going to get one of those. I don't want to be rude to anybody. I like I we spent an hour and a half at the last hearing. I heard from everybody. let everybody voice their
concerns and today we are focusing on the job at hand and what this board is actually responsible for. So uh before we do that you want to go ahead. I think some of us um including
myself was a little concerned regarding the conservation uh committee and because it was so close to the waterway was any of this work actually uh legal? So I reached out to Chris Capone at the conservation committee and he said the
Westport Conservation I I'm reading right from his email and if you want I'll send this to to um Maria so she can put it into the record. The Westport Conservation Committee required the owner to file a request for determination after the fact. So the request for determination is what needs
to get filed when you're working that close to a waterway. The work was approved at a public meeting in March. The owner has complied with our conditions. The Westport Conservation has no further concerns at this time.
So I think we can lay any issues that we were worried that there might be a conservation issue here that it has been a it hadn't been taken to a public meeting and had been approved. >> Right. I mean it's good to hear that but again we couldn't use that as part of
our rationale anyway because that's not got nothing to do with the finding. The finding is not a conservation effort. It's not a building inspector effort. It's a finding of detrimental uh aspect to the neighborhood. And before I get going, I am going to announce the uh the
voting members will be myself, uh Cynthia Kazakawitz, Jerry Coutino, Constinsky, and and George Selius. Uh right now, what I want to do is I want to have Ralph, you want to come up here? I' I'd like you to give us a quick overview of the project, and then I want to focus on what we're calling this rear
disc this this deck. What's been approved? What are the issues with it? uh what needs to be uh what uh done to be go to uh going forward >> in particular I like like your interpretation of what the uh permit was for because it's a little wonky.
>> We're talking about there was uh >> specifically about the back deck >> facing the water. >> Yes. The one facing the water >> facing the water. The deck facing the water was increased in size, >> but there was So there was a deck there to start. >> There was a deck there to start with.
>> Okay. Um, it's on, if I can find the assessor's field card. It's on the assessor's field card. The the new one is a little bigger than the than what was there, but the main Yeah, the the deck that was
there was um 12 by 20. >> And what was approved in the building permit? >> The deck that was approved in the building permit was 12 by 20. >> Right. And that's why you didn't >> that's why it didn't flagged. That wasn't flagged,
>> right? Okay. I just want >> What was flagged when I got the the First I'll back up. The permit was issued to replace 14 windows, same size, same location, replacing siding for the whole house, building a 20 by 12 deck
canopy over the front. And >> which >> can you well you can finish but I'd like to know what you thought what the canopy over the o over the door was where was that over the deck or over the >> Well there's a mis you know I question
one of the photos this photo. This is the canopy over the what would you call the side door? >> Yeah. >> This depicts it as being in the corner of the house. The house goes this way and it comes back this way. So it's it's right there. Did you is that what you thought you approved or did you think
you were approving something? >> No. What what what's there is is a non-issue to me, but it's not what was >> this. Again, going backing up, this is the side of the building, >> not the water side, >> right? >> This is this side of the building. This this here, but it was proposed like
this. But what the concern was this building back here is is the abuters building pretty much. They're on top. >> They're on top of each other. Yes. >> So, >> they're on top one. Yes. Can I >> So that's where the the concern started with that. >> Yeah. So did So did you think you were approving that? >> This was already approved. That's the
way this drawing depicts it. >> Yeah. Okay. And >> this was approved. >> You didn't. Is that not an issue for a finding because it was the building? >> It's >> or was there something? Was there something there already? >> By this I wouldn't have I wouldn't have um denied this permit showing me this
drawing the way it is. Yeah. Yeah, >> because that's telling me the building's L-shaped building and a roof attached to it in the corner of the building. It doesn't tell me that this is a building separate. >> It doesn't tell me it's in the butter. >> But when I went there, cuz when the clone planes came in, when I went there,
it was the building is separate. >> Yeah, >> there's like a 5ft space between them. Possibly one building's over the line a little bit. Don't know. >> Um, what really got me was the >> description in the building permit wasn't accurate.
the well the description in the building per I mean again we're online permitting now so it's a little different >> I know it's a little hard for you it's a little different than me sitting with somebody writing this thing out >> it's a it's different now I'm dealing with online stuff >> right right
>> so on online again looking at this photo >> it's in the corner wouldn't not question to me >> okay and that's about as much as I want to hear about that because that's not the subject of tonight >> what caught my eye was when I looked up, I saw
the new construction. The the building had been extended second level >> and that's not what was on the permit. >> Okay. >> That wasn't on the permit. >> Ernie Blake has a has a question. C >> can I just ask him a maybe help him? >> So, what did you issue a cease and
desist for the work in general to get a handle on what was going on there? >> Okay. And your problem was you had indicated to the other to to the property owner that he needed to to request a finding, right? >> Request a finding based on drawings alteration of a pre-existing
non-conforming use. >> Correct. >> The picture that you just told us has nothing to do with with a with the finding. >> No. >> Okay. So, I'm going to show you this picture right here. Do you have you seen that? >> I've seen that. >> Is is this what you instructed him to
get a finding for? >> Correct. You're you're saying deck. >> Well, >> you're saying deck. Hold on. You're saying deck. There's two decks in this picture. >> There's two decks. There originally was two decks on the house, but >> it's it's the extension of that second level room.
>> Okay. It's these decks are now, I believe, 20 x 20. Were they 20 by 20 before? >> 20 by 12. >> They were 20 by 12. >> So, these are now 20 by 20. >> 20. So the finding is for no addition and that second line
>> and this second right here and >> that second line. >> All right. Sorry I just >> So both of the decks were 20 by >> both of the decks by the field cards were were 12. >> No, they weren't. The upper deck was more like a little like Rome uh
>> Juliet balcony. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Romeo balcony going by what the assesses for the right. I'm going by I I was looking at we were looking at pictures that last week I'm going by what >> it looked a lot smaller but yeah there was still something up there and as long
as it doesn't >> there's still something up there but >> and as long as it doesn't >> the biggest thrust was the room came out >> the second floor roof came out that's the >> but the deck also came out too >> the deck came out >> that would if he if he would have so if he would have come to you with a 20 by
20 deck originally you would have told him to get a finding >> okay >> but it's the room that called my eye. >> Yeah, >> cuz when I went there >> Okay. He he did not need a finding when it was going to be a 12 by 20 because that was already there. >> Already did.
>> Okay. Gotcha. All right. >> Yeah. We're trying to clarify like understand the rules because >> because he expanded it. Now it's a it's a modification of a non-conformation original permit which is going to if this gets approved he's going to have to apply for a separate permit for the additional work.
>> Right. >> That's not on the permit. >> Right. Would that also include the blowing out of the uh of the building in the back which made it closer to his neighbor's property? >> Then we're not supposed to talk about the
>> but what if you're going to ask him for another um >> or whatever this what's whatever this decision comes from. >> We're only making a decision on the deck facing the water. So, do you believe that um the
the extension of the overhang of the over the door would have if you would have actually >> actually seal >> if you if you actually had gotten proper information and it wasn't online, would you have requested a finding for that? >> That too. >> Okay. >> And also for the the squaring off of the
house there next to the neighbor's property. >> Well, well, the squaring off that didn't appear to be a squaring off to me. It appeared to be like the downstairs level. When you went into that doorway, there was like an entryway there. You went in that doorway. What that second floor wall did, that second floor wall
came straight down. Now, the doorway's been moved out to that >> closer to the >> there was something there, right? >> Okay. So, what we're what we're getting at here is that even after even if we were to grant this finding there, he's going to have to go back to you with
updated plans and that may invoke additional work, >> additional findings, additional whatever. >> Correct. >> Right. Okay. Uh was was anything of what we're calling the rear deck. Is any of that
was any of that approved? The sauna tubes were approved. The sauna tubes >> in the ground. Oh, okay. >> In the ground were approved. >> Okay. So, so the footings for it the footings structure for it, >> but the footings were approved for a single story.
>> Well, even if it was a double story deck, the the footings are going to be the footings for the whole thing. >> For the whole thing. >> Yeah. But there were two. >> Now we're out of my per one's going to come down on the other. >> Right. Right. Right. Okay. >> The continuous. And you didn't notice that it was larger than 12 by 20?
>> No. >> A lot of dirt was moved >> around. So, I mean I I mean there's a construction site and they're trying to do a lot of things at one time. There's a few issues going on down there. It's not only there's other things going on down there.
>> Okay. I think that clears up a lot uh for me anyway as far as what's been approved, what's not approved. Um the fact that they're going to anything that we do here, they're going to have to go back to you with updated plans which may invoke further >> depending on what what they're showing you.
>> You know, you know, further you may require an additional finding or some other I I don't think there's a variance coming into this, but >> I I won't see a variance. It's just I've got to double check the code it because
the way that side this roof comes out >> it could be too too close to the neighbor's house >> for separation. >> Okay. >> It's going to be a minimal five fiveT 5 foot separation. >> Oh. >> Now Ralph, you also uh work in
conjunction with the board of health on health issues with the number of bedrooms. Mhm. >> Does that come into play here at all? >> This is going to trigger when the guys drawings come for the second floor. >> It's going to trigger it going to the
board of health >> because it's expansion of a bedroom. But is it one bedroom? I know. I don't see a floor plan. I don't know what the floor plan's like. >> Yeah. >> Extension of the bedroom that's there. I don't know that. >> Okay. I I my recollection was that uh
when you were not able to be here last time uh I believe they indicated they're going to trade one bedroom for another. >> It could be that that's a that's a board of appeals uh excuse me board of health allow that they'll trade one bedroom they'll they'll eliminate one bedroom they'll have to widen the door
>> take the door off and widen it to a 4ft open. >> Yeah. So in and in and anyway that's that's beyond so and well we'll certainly have to wait until you get your updated drawings to decide what how to proceed with it. >> Again I think we're I'm I'm going
slightly off topic but I I find it from myself to be slightly important. So the that one picture of the overhang um you believe that there's a finding that's required there as well. >> I believe there's going to be a finding for that. So is there um because I don't >> So was there but wasn't your cease and
desist? >> Cease and desist. >> All right. Well, I mean it says >> the cease and the season did cover that canopy. However, it appears there is some there's been some there was last week there was some discrepancy that you told
the homeowner that it was okay to continue that work, but technically that cease and desist for that canopy is still >> in effect. >> In effect. >> Okay. Did they I let I I took the stop work because after talking to town administrator, I took the stop work
order off. I let them continue the scope of work that wouldn't be like vinyl side and windows. You had windows out. >> We had some rain days there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I didn't want to have the house get messed up >> again. And the reason I'm bringing this up is because I think the homeowner thinks that you also approved the
continuation of that canopy. Um which is why I think one of the reasons what I wanted to have you here tonight to discuss. >> Well, It's the canopy. I got to look at what was there >> before canopy got shown up there. Yeah. >> Was there something there?
>> Yeah. But did but in your opinion the ce the stop work order is still doesn't because the the town administrator asked you to take >> the town administrator asked me to just let let him >> Okay. >> Mr. Ogles go and do the scope of work permit I issued
>> and that includ the stuff I had. Yeah. That included >> and that include the canopy. So, you still haven't really addressed that issue yet? >> Yeah, I really haven't addressed it yet. >> Okay. >> Till I see fine-tuned drawings. >> Mhm. >> But the thing that got me that when I went there to see it was the proximity
to the next door shelf. I mean, they're all those buildings in that area all in. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Every which way. >> Yes. >> So, I just got to make sure that the separation between one to the other is okay by the building code, not necessarily zoning. And what is that
>> building required by uh >> five? No, no, closer than five feet. >> What what what's the nonconformities down there? >> Is it lot size? All >> they're pre-existing non-conforming structures and lots. They're small lots. >> Well, yeah. One house one house is
pretty much on top of the line. >> So So the the non-conformities are the setbacks. >> The setbacks coverage and lot coverage and >> lot size. It's >> it's it's everything. I mean, >> they were all cottages to begin with. >> They're all cottages and they've expanded over the years to what they
are. And it's not only in that area. >> You walk not too far away and there's another area, two areas just like it where you're going into this common driveway type thing. They're all in there. They're all just they're in there tight, >> right? >> So, just touch the building,
>> right? It just been that way before zoning. >> Yeah. So again, the the 12 by 20 deck didn't increase the non-conformance of the uh lot coverage, but now the 20 by 20 does affect the lot coverage. >> Correct.
>> And do you think the again only because he's here, do you think the the canopy affects the lot coverage as well or is that excluded in the building code? >> The canopy off the side which I'm off the side. >> You still you need to investigate what was there before. Well, once I I have to
dig into what was there >> there before. Yeah, you're right. >> I've got to go pay a visit to the assessor. >> If there was nothing there before, how would that pan out? >> And he's back in here for it. If if there was something there, then how big was it? How much how much bigger is this
than that? Or or are they the same size? >> Yeah. Once again, we're getting off topic. Okay. >> This is more information for for for a learning experience. It's not going to affect my vote on this matter, but I just >> want to be understand what's
>> okay. Any want to any other information we need from Ralph before I open it up to I I have a clearer understanding of at least what the status is and and how we got to where we are. Uh again, I'll open it up to the floor, but
again, two conditions. We're staying on topic of the uh what we're calling the rear deck and we are only discussing aspects that are within the uh the boundaries of what the zoning board can
do. We're not going to discuss planning board issues. We're not going to discuss concom issues. So Mike is there if anybody wants to come up. >> Name and address. >> Derek Ogles 231B to Tok Road. Okay. So obviously there's back and forth and
tons of confusion. I went the next day to try to figure this out. This is an email I sent to Ralph the other day after we had a conversation. Says, "Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today to review the project at 231B Ticker Road and discuss the questions raised at last night's zoning board hearing. After taking the time to
carefully review the approved permit plans in scope of work together, because I went there and talked to him, you agreed that the only issue is a plus or minus 8 foot addition to the rear of the housing facing the water. All the other project items were presented to your office and were included in the approved
permit. My understanding from our discussion is that all the properly permitted work is not a zoning concern. However, you made it clear that you would like me to go to the ZBA to review the issue of the rear edition referenced above. I wanted to send this email to confirm my understanding of our
discussion and to ensure we are moving forward in alignment. Last night, I promised as EBA I would meet with you and obtain clarification on what what would like them to know that I address this issue proactively and in a timely manner. If I if I misunderstood or misstated anything in the email, please
let me know and I'm happy to set up a time to come back into town hall to revisit the project. Thank you again for your time and assistance. Their email response I got back was, "Your understanding is correct." Okay, I for the first time last week saw the plans that were presented. My
understanding that there's always a 2020. While these plans are sloppy, I'm not going to sit here and say that this is my project and I'm confused by it, but there is a 20x 20 deck listed here and there's a second floor deck that's listed on there. It's in the project.
Now, I can see where people where it might be some confusion, but that 12 by8 and from what I'm looking at because it's all online like he had said was a typo. And my that second floor deck is technically a 12x8. So, when they were
doing the permits, it was supposed to be a 20 x 20. That second floor bumpout was supposed to be 8 ft, making that deck attached to it a 12x 20. That's where that 12 x 20 and if you look at the plans while there's lobby, that's what it That's what it shows. So my main
thing here is even the 20 by 20 and the other stuff like that. This is permitted and I've done everything. I've done everything any and you can talk about anytime any questions come up. I've responded to whether it was conservation commission whether it was
uh emails back and forth from me and we've continued now on that side after I got this cuz every time that we've had something happen I have not touched one thing know there was concerns about people going back and just doing things I can assure you every time that there was an issue no contractor touched
another inch of that house after speaking with him with the contractor with me we began to build on that side canopy So now there's more money going into the side can all of a sudden >> we're not talking about the side >> I know but >> we have and unfortunately it's come up
again. I didn't expect it to be brought up at all but here we are again talking about it. >> I just want the record to show that I've addressed these issues gone in there and I would like and this is what I
thought this was going to be is a quick this is about the back piece. This is about the 8 ft. It's not even if you look at the plans that 20 by 20 is in the plans. While these plans are sloppy, >> but even technically whether it's 12 by 20 or 20
by 20, all we're looking at for a finding is is the the plan of record is it more detrimental to the neighborhood? That's that's our sole uh uh responsibility in this petition. No, and I and I understand that, but I I also
want to put on there because I mean, I've tried to do things. I know the contractor didn't put certain things in there and we've discussed that, but I just don't want the record to kind of show that we were trying to play any games and I've been trying to be transparent. That's why I document it with an email, not just a conversation
this time. So, I mean, that's all I have to say. I >> mean, I agree with you. It's saying that you're having an upper deck of 12 by 20 and a lower deck of 20 by 20 and that there's two floors clearly on your original plan. I agree with that and I
just need to understand where um but this should never if Ralph properly if Ralph had properly interpreted these plans, he would have actually triggered you to come here for a finding before he issued
his permit. >> I understand that. >> Yeah. And and I'm fine with that. I just wanted the record surely there wasn't any >> this wasn't any trickery here. This wasn't and and I want to know because I got to go back and talk to my contractor about these issues, right? But when he says, "Hey, but no, it was on the plans." And he shows me the plans
because last week was the first time I've seen them. >> Yeah. >> I never seen it before. >> Yeah. I mean >> I mean that's that's all I really have to say about >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Chairman with an office at 255 county street in
Somerset on behalf of Patricia um Lee the mediator of butter. Um we pretty much said everything we wanted to at the last meeting. I just I just have a question because I'm not clear. Uh do you have a copy of the permit the application to this board? >> Yeah, that's what we're looking at. >> Could I could I just see the applica the
application? >> You you actually pro you provided that for us. >> Unfortunately, I I just looked at my file. I don't have it because I the application filed by Mr. Oles. >> Yeah, that was part of your >> is that that's the building permit. I
mean the application for this war. Oh, look. Oh, >> yeah. This right here. Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you. I apologize. That's what I thought. So, um, was the original I I didn't hear what Mr. uh Sus
had said. Um, was the original deck on top 12 by 20? >> According to the He said according to the build record card, >> it was probably >> All right. Well, I agree with you. I agree with you, Mr. Man. We have to go exactly by the petition. The petition
seeks relief from this board for one deck. 20 by 20, not two decks. >> What? It says an elevated deck. >> 20 by 20. >> 20 by 20. >> Okay. So, which deck? He's asking for relief for one deck. >> Go by the perimeter as you repeatedly
said two meetings. The application >> with roof structure and with roof structure. >> Okay. But this >> there's not two decks going there. I'm a little confused because I thought there were two decks going in there. We saw this for one deck. >> It is
>> construction of a 202 elevated deck. The first one is elevated. Addition test is addition dwelling with oh with roof structure above which it could be effectively the second deck but that's not the second deck is not a roof structure >> and the second deck is not coming into your perfume tonight. Is that you're
making I just want to make sure I know is a permit for both decks. >> So the application is for one deck for relief for a finding. Is that right? That's what I just read on the application. I just want to make sure I get it clear. >> You want to Mr. Mr. May have been very clear and I I agree with him. We should
isolate our decisions, your decisions to the per to the application itself. >> The application seeks relief for one deck. >> And if that's what the board's going to do, that's that's fine. >> He issued a permit for the other. >> No, he didn't. >> No, he didn't. >> He didn't one deck. >> There's only one deck on the
application. So, you know, that's if you issue it for one one deck, I mean, you're in accordance with the with the law, I would suggest. If you don't, clearly you're not because you're, as Mr. May said, we're going right by the application. The other question I have, which he was just brought up.
>> Hold on. C, can I just >> He issued a permit from one of the decks back. >> The guys before us for a finding on one deck and the other >> and the and the and the bump out. >> This one's permitted.
>> That's not what it says. Well, that's >> I actually have to agree with >> Well, no. Let's see the elevated deck and the roof structure >> above. >> That's right. >> Yeah, >> that's right. >> The roof structure. >> Ralph issued a permit for that. So, he's not here for the finding. He's here for the finding for the elevated deck and
the roof structure. >> And the roof structure, >> but he also needs to have So, he's he's asking >> the building. >> The way I the way I read the permit is that he's asking for this and this, but he also needs to add to add to that. >> Ralph, no. He issued a permit for
>> 12 by >> 12 by 20. 20, not 20 by 20. >> It's not in the application. The other thing I point out you just brought up is that the lot coverage. Now, I did some calculations way back. I didn't even bring this up at the last >> lot coverage is not our that's that's his job.
>> I'm talking to Lee about the debt. >> That's his job. Not our job. >> Yeah, but >> that's his job. Not our job. >> Isn't it detrimental to the >> No, that's his job. Not our job. >> I to I disagree. >> You can disagree. >> If they need a variance, you can't issue this finding. If if he needs a variance,
then then we're gonna have then then he he'll have to issue a permit for a variance. >> Well, due to respect, >> it's not a finding, it's a variance. >> You're putting the cops because if somebody needs a variance, they have to show a hardship and if they can't show and a hardship relates to the soil and
>> right. Okay. So they'd have to have a hardship to get the variance which goes directly to the issue of substantial detriment to your absolutely >> no you wouldn't need a variance because it's already a non-conforming >> pre if you have a pre-existing nonconforming
use >> it's a finding >> it's a finding unless you create another nonconformity >> that's why question was to Ralph what is the nonconformity he told me setbacks and lot size so you're not creating a
new nonconformity. You're extending the old the the existing the existing. It's a finding. >> If I could finish, if I could finish, >> of course, >> the lot size was not non the lot coverage was not non-conforming. >> That's what he just said.
>> It the lot the lot size is non-conforming. >> The lot coverage was not nonconforming before the construction. >> It was under this bylaw's requirements. >> I don't know if he even looked at that. He just just talked about lock coverage. >> Now
>> lot coverage was mentioned when when Mr. Susan was talking. Now the issue is it was see as you know it was it was mentioned. So now the lot coverage because of this deck as >> I told you three times already lot
coverage is not part of our finding. >> It is not part of our finding >> part of the permit. >> If it is an issue then it comes in as a variance. Exactly. >> We're not dealing with the variance right now. If it goes back to Ralph and Ralph says, "You're violating the zoning
bylaw for lot coverage, then it will be a different petition." >> But and again, >> because it got nothing to do with a finding, >> but it has to do with the finding because you have to show it's not detrimental to the neighborhood. >> And and I and I've already described what that means. Is it safety? Is it,
you know, >> I I disagree. That's not correct interpretation of the law. Attorney Blake, >> I I look, if it's a pre-existing non-conforming use, if you're extending the nonconformity, it's a finding, right? If it's not and you're creating a
new nonconformity, creating a new nonconformity. For example, if lot coverage is not the nonconformity and the 8- foot addition to the upper deck, not the lower one, would be put
them over lock coverage. Then that would be a new nonconformity which could require a variance. A >> variance. >> That's not what our building commissioner is here to say, >> right? and and that's not what he has said, >> right? >> And the word it is not a finding, it's a
variance. >> He may re consider that when he gets the permit after we issue the finding, >> right? >> Because right because you after if we issue the >> what's what's got to be permitted. >> If we issue the finding and you have then then they come for the permit
because you haven't really seen everything yet. You may find that they're now in violation of lock coverage. But it's something you have not addressed yet because the original permit was only 12 by 20. >> Turn to Blake. >> May May I also the abutters have
standing to have appealed the building permit. They have standing to appeal your determination if you if you if if you make it in favor of them and they have um the ability to ask for zoning enforcement. So those are their three
avenues that they can take. So, it's in my opinion, it's not proper for them to come in here and try to appeal a building permit that was issued >> or anything like that um and request additional enforcement. It's certainly
proper to come in here and say, "I don't think that you should issue this finding because of X, Y, and Z." But to try to leaprog that into what is in a sense an appeal or a request for zoning enforcement, I don't think is proper. >> They have the avenues that they can go
to. Right. >> Understood. I would just go by the per if you go by the application itself for one deck then that's perfectly within you. Perfect. >> But the the the abuterist did ask in their original request. Oh,
>> I guess I guess I shrunk. >> The environments did ask in their original request for relief regarding the canopy we're not supposed to talk about because it's not relevant to this that and then so I I just want to make
sure that portion is taken care of by our zoning enforcement officer. >> That's his call. >> Yeah, >> that's his call. Yeah, >> you know, he he he is the he is the boots on the ground in the first instance. >> Okay.
>> Can I ask one last question? Which deck are we? >> No, I was I was just I was saying >> I just want to know which deck you're considering. The the upper deck which is an expansion of not in performing use or the lower deck because one deck was requested. That's my only my last question. Which deck you're considering?
>> There's only one before. If you go once again when you look at and we talked about you guys went online now everything is online there's obviously confusion with this online basis Ralph he came out he approved the footings a 12 by I there's not a single
person in here I could sell a 12ft piece of lumber and as a 20ft piece of lumber in here without you saying I don't think so that's not 20 ft when you go out there he he saw that 20 by 20 there was no issues with it that was all permitted every stage was permitted he came back
when the structure was up, it was it kept going. We we we got approvals throughout the whole thing. That 12x 20, what that says on there, that's that's a typo. In my opinion, that's supposed to be a 20 x 20. The documentation, the paperwork that I received, which is what I have to receive, talks about second
level. I went again and talked about this with Ralph and he says it's only the 8ft bumper. And once again, we're trying to throw mud in the water here and try to like do all this stuff. Once again, we're not talking about side piece. They've already that's already in court. The court can the court can go in
there and find out and tell me to rip that stuff down. They've already they've already put that into the court's hands. >> May I? >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Ralph, what did you permit? >> Permitted a 14 No, same size, same location, a 12x 20 deck.
>> So deck you >> building a 20 x 20 deck canopy over the front. >> You you didn't you didn't permit this bottom deck by 20. >> Yeah. Well, but I mean that's that's >> it's 20 by 20 and that's not what you're reading to me. >> Well, it's just this see again it goes
back to these pyramids done online and it's that's the part of this I don't like because I'm not seeing what I've got to see. And >> and you had in front of you these rudimentary drawings >> rudimentary drawing. >> And does that tell you that that's a 20 by 20 or does that tell you that's a 20 by 12? It
>> says 20 x 12. >> 20 by 12. I know, but I I think Cynthia was at one point with saying 20 by this. Well, it's 12 by 20, but then it Well, there's two things. Like this looks like if I were to look at this, I would say, "Okay, it's 12 x 20 deck, and
>> I really wouldn't know what this crap is." >> But then you go to the other page and there's actually two floors. >> Who cares? I I don't I'm only asking about And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be. So, um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm very sorry. I I shouldn't have
said that. I I what I'm asking about is the the footage. >> Yes. >> How big? I think the issue for you guys right now is >> I I think this is if knowing what I know now, this looks like it's a 12x 20 upper deck and a 20x 20 lower deck.
>> Is that what you thought, Ralph? >> If he would have thought that, he would have asked for a finding because sending the non-conformance. >> When you look at this drawing, it says 20 and 12. The 12 going across the front. So, it's a 20 x 12 both line up. Okay. >> And I think because he approved it
without asking for a finding is that in my mind that Ralph could have only interpreted that to be a 12 by 20 deck. >> And I think he just said that. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> All right. >> And you're saying that this is a typo on your schematic drawing? >> No. So once again, and I'm if I was Rob,
I wouldn't accepted those plans, right? Me if I was in the job. If you look at the project the way the project was supposed to go when I told my contract and I can understand this because this would that bottom deck was supposed to be 20 by 20 then you have the 8 foot bump up. Technically that 8ft bump up
the deck should attach the 8ft bump up which creates a 12x 20 deck. If you look at the way he does, he draws that out with a deck sticking out from the bottom of it. And then in the other page, it looks like a kid got through it, but it is the other pole on this. That's where
the major understanding is. That first one, while it's a 20 x 20, it's supposed to be the permit says a 12 by 8 >> 12 x 20. They start going in there and that's why it goes there. That's me personally. I wouldn't have accepted that and I would ask for clarification.
Well, so is this normal? I mean, we do we generally u permit on the basis of a drawing like this >> similar to that. I mean, they get the other drawings have got more detail on them >> and then in the description on the
permit, it's got more detail on it on what it's being built. Whereas >> this is I know it's just >> there's nothing in the permit. >> This is going to get fine-tuned because it's online permitting. But this doesn't even look like it's 20 feet. It looks like >> like it's like
>> like it's maybe if I was going to try to over that I would have put I would have put >> 15 feet or 16 >> I would have drawn it like this. >> So I look up and 20. >> Was it supposed to be narrow or I mean yeah just I don't it looks looks narrow.
>> It's impossible to read this. >> Yeah. I think but I think we have to go on the assumption that if if Ralph had thought it was 20 by 20 reading the application online and with
subpar plans if he thought it was 20 by 20 he would immediately have have said you would have denied you would have denied the permit because the the existing one was 12 x 20. >> Going back to the assessor's field card it says 12 by 20 and 20 is the whole width of the house. Yeah,
>> it's the whole width of the house, >> right? But then I Right. But if >> Yeah. But if again if you would have if they would have if he would if I think and I'm not going to speak for Ralph, but in my mind that if Ralph had interpreted that as a 8-oot bumpout extending the non-conformance, he would
have sent this he would have sent you immediately to us, >> right? And so therefore I think the only interpretation that I can say is that Ralph interpreted it to be a single 12 by 20 deck
and which is what you've said. So in reality I think the attorney for the abuter is saying that there should be two things here is that there should be the 20 by 20 there should be a request for the 20 to 20 below deck
and the 12x 20 elevated deck with a bumpout which is not what it says here. That's what exactly he's doing. He's doing a 20 x 20 elevated deck first floor with a 12x 20 deck on top floor with an 8ft bumpout. Right. >> There's nothing in that that says that,
>> right? Yes. >> So, he's not asking for what he's doing. >> So, I I don't know where we go with that. That's for our attorney to explain to us. But I I I think the >> I think what's going to happen, even if we approve this, is going to have to go back to Ralph. And there's going to be
another round on this to clear this all up. >> Go ahead. >> A question for Ralph. Rob, why why did you tell the property owner that he had to get a finding for the upper deck and the bump up? >> It it was the room bump. It was the room that caught my eye when I went there.
>> But why why not the bottom deck? As you can see, there's a there's a >> Well, again, things were missed here. >> So on because I'm looking at the it says square feet of work area 240 square feet. So that's that's a
>> 20 24 by 8 whatever. 12 by 20 >> 240 square square square feet. Then when you go back to the drawings, you're looking at this with two decks, one over the other. >> So there's been so 12 by 20 is 240. So
there's there's a lot of inconsistency with the original building permit. First they said they were asking for a 12 x20 deck and only increasing it. The the the square footage is only 240. So again, a reasonable person would say that was one
deck that was 12 by 20, not two decks. So there's there's a disconnect here, right? Like there's there's so many inconsistencies in the original building permit that and again because I would say it
said 12 by 20 it said 240 and if it was anything else it would have issu it would have required a find it Ralph would have immediately denied it and required a finding. So therefore since he approved it he approved the 12 by 20 and which is 240.
So regardless of the fact that he signed off on a 20 by 20 footing, I don't know where that >> I don't think that's that I I don't >> I don't think I don't think that's dispository. >> No, I agree. >> I just have one question on that, right? Because and and I'll agree and I'm not making excuses. So if we say, hey,
listen, >> the original >> this application not the greatest application, a lot of stuff >> at that time, he's now sending me for a finding >> in his own documentation. He's not sending me for a finding for X, Y, and Z. If he told me I had to come for two
decks and the upper part, no problem. I just add that to it and I and I go from there. >> So, how is that missed >> on me coming to the finding? >> Yeah. >> Where we're doing this multiple different times. If >> I'm being told and I've multiple conversations, what am I going for the
finding for? >> Just the 8 foot bump up. >> Why wasn't I told, hey, it's the the bottom deck? No problem. You want me to come for? No problem. here here's I'll submit everything to me it's like okay this 20 by 20 is all set this 8ft bumpout this is because we all know we
can sit here and build inspector can come to my house and he can say x y and z until it's in writing and given to me it's not legally binding really at that point a certain process that has to go through >> I'm not as as the homeowner >> I expect to give hey listen here is the
paperwork this is what you need to do okay I will take the responsibility and I will go do x y and z that's what I did when I got that paperwork, that paperwork is telling me to go do this. Forget about all this stuff. That should be all set. And then next thing you know, I come to this is the second time and I'm getting hit. It's like a
whirlwind. What What am I going to do? Like the like there's processes. There's checks and balances. Somebody went there. Somebody looked at it. Somebody's gone through there. I'm get I'm getting letters, documented letters. Hey, this is what you have to go do. Okay, here's my contract. Go do X, Y, and Z. And then
I come here and it's like the goalpost gets moved a little bit. Even talking about the the whole non-conforming technically it's only 8 ft cuz that property was already there. It's only would be an 8 by 20 because going straight up too doesn't increase that doesn't increase that body. It's already there. Like we're we're we you got
people on here saying talking about that. Oh, this going to be a drastic difference. It's 400 ft a decade. No, it's not. It's an eight. It's plus 8 by 20 ft. So, whatever that is. And that extends straight up. There's no it doesn't double as you go up. I've looked at the case law. I've gone through all this. But once again, I get told, "Hey,
you're gonna come here and you're gonna it's only about the back deck." And they're able to sneak in all these other things. They have it in court. They're getting seven cracks at the apple here. >> So, what do like So, I think there's some Well, I think the the building permit had some inconsistencies. I think
the variance has inconsistency, but I also agree with the uh applicant that it's a you know it he's not an expert on this >> and he's just trying to to find his way through it. Is it okay that
like even though by the letter of the of the variant of of the finding isn't 100% correct that what he's asking can we correct that by just making sure that when we issue if we do issue a finding we make it clear what we're finding. >> What we're finding though is we're
finding for this >> but >> but and even if if if uh if it doesn't affect the lower because this is for the elevated deck and the roof structure. Mhm. >> If it goes back and it with with updated
um drawings that now show 20 by 20 and whatever uh uh because we're if we were to approve the 20 by 20 deck and then then the next round will not imp uh have
a require a finding because it doesn't affect >> that part of it will not be affected if we if we grant Now there are other aspects of the property that that may do and property coverage you know there's a whole a whole other issue.
>> I mean I guess I'm confused is because it says construction of a 2020 by elevated deck which by the applicant's own emission upper deck is only 12. the bottom deck is 40 by because of the
eight out bumpout, right? And it doesn't actually ask it doesn't really say and I and I and I get you know you're you are not an attorney. So you when you're writing this you're writing it in layman's terms but then
again I always think of ignorance of the law as no excuse. So, um, I'm really at a loss here. >> At the end of the day, from my interpretation and going through all the case law and looking at the study, even if one deck was go 20 by 20 and gets
approved, 20 foot projection, the next time, and I think that's what you're saying, it's no longer changing. >> It's no longer a finding, >> right? >> It's not because Yeah, exactly. Because if we say >> anything else is not a finding, okay, >> it's not like that 8ft bumpout that's here for the finding. Technically,
that's within the old 12 foot 12x 20 deck area. It's not a there's zero issue. Technically, most towns and places allow the building inspector to go in there and approve that on the spot. Westport by all means. >> Well, well, no, because because it's a non-conforming lot, it makes it different.
>> So, in and I kind of dug deep into this. There's certain areas where they allow the building truck because it's still within that area and it's not changing and non-conforming. They allow it. Westport, you have to come refining. That's fine. That's the rules and regulations in Westport. I have no problem with that. So, same thing with this 20 by 20. Once one gets approved,
>> that's it. And now I I I build within the same ballpark. I'm not changing the non-conformity >> and I don't I only change the nonconformity by 8 by 20 by that extension of that back deck that I believe was approved. >> That's kind of where I'm I'm >> Yeah. So, you're saying that you're
asking for the lower 20 by 20 deck and then anything you would do above it is irrelevant and Yeah. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> I have a question. Um, Ralph, uh, I
realize these are kind of sketchy plans. Uh, do these photos have any part in your approval process? >> No, no, no. They weren't they weren't part of it. They They're going to come forward. >> They're all after the fact.
That's all for us, not for wasn't for Ralph. Okay. >> Because they reason I'm asking is that they're all somewhat different. So I don't know what you'd be approving if if they did.
>> What was online is is this one. This one. That's the one where the house looks like it's an L-shaped house, but it's not. >> Oh, yeah. That's >> That's what's on the line. That's the only >> This This is online. >> Yeah.
>> And this is online. >> Okay. >> Forward. >> Yeah. Those other pictures, including the other renditions, were just for our >> uh >> to get for you to get a feel of what it's going to look like all said and done. >> Yeah.
>> Any other comments? seems like we need to have better standards for um blueprint or submission. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, >> I think we're all uh I know uh uh most
of the town is going to online stuff and I know there's a lot of there's a lot of >> that's possible. >> There's a learning curve with uh you know, whenever you you go to an online system, you know, I know we've all been through that. You know, it's you know, >> it's a whole new system. We used to do
it all by paper that you could actually look at things and >> so if there's no other comments I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. >> Make a motion to close the hearing. >> Do I have a second? >> Make sure that the I just want to make sure the butterers realize what's happening when we close the hearing that
we're not you don't say anything else. >> Okay. I just want I just want to make sure that they understand what that when we close the hearing that we can't hear from anybody out there. only from in here >> unless we ask a question. >> Yes. >> So I second it. >> Second. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. All oppose. No. Okay. We close the hearing again. Uh we'll we'll discuss it and render a decision. Um again I want to remind the board what a finding is all about. Uh we you know we really
cannot take into consideration building code issues, concom issues. This really does just is this more detrimental to the neighborhood? Uh I mean I we've heard from other neighbors that that
have no problem with it. Does this does this back deck really affect any of the neighbors? >> And I think what amounts I think the neighbors who have who have brought this all the issues >> and before I do this >> said that wasn't either >> a finding requires a majority vote of three. >> Yeah.
>> So go ahead. I'm just saying saying that the the from last week the uh abutters who brought some of these issues to the attention of the building uh the building inspector and the zoning enforcement officer also
had admitted acknowledged that they don't have an issue with the back deck either. It's the other things that are >> the issue. Um, and I hope that um those are addressed in the proper channels.
>> I mean, I uh I think there's a lot of issues with this project, but I don't think the back deck really is a detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, I've been there. I you know, you know, nice back deck looking out over the pond. I mean, everybody would like that.
Uh again, like I said, I think there are a lot of issues that are going to have to resolve from uh from the uh building inspector's uh uh side of this. Um but I don't see this as as detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Yeah, I mean I I I I agree. I don't and
I think I agreed last week that I don't find it detrimental to the neighborhood. I definitely think there are some outstanding issues in the property, but I feel comfortable that I think Ralph is aware of those. Um, and I also I guess the only thing I would say is that if um
the applicant does um buys another property in Westport, I think I would hope he is a little more attuned with his contractor about the proper permits, but I think at this point um it is confusing. he did rely on
his his contractor. you know, the it's the the building permit is fraught with um issues, but that isn't really what's be, you know, if it if this had come if this had
come to us, if Ralph had flagged this originally when the permit was applied for and it came to us, my view is that it's not that I I wouldn't think it was detrimental. So
I think that's how I have to think about this is what I would have done if this came before us before the fact. >> Roger. Yes. >> I don't like it that it's coming after the fact. But um >> any other comments?
>> I I have one. I I just want to I I want you to be clear when you're voting. Um, as you can see, my brother has indicated he thinks this needs a finding, but it's only this one that's getting the finding or vice versa. >> It's the bottom one.
>> Well, one 20 by 20 by 20 elevated deck with with a uh >> bumpout, >> but with the with a roof structure, right? But so but my point is this is in and he's trying to hold the
>> lay person um applica applicant for this to a certain standard. So I suggest that there's enough ambiguity in his request that he's asking you to give him a finding for this entire both. And I would suggest that you put that in your
decision >> rather than because I know I'm a lawyer. I know what my brother's gonna do. If you if you don't distinguish everything, he's going to come in and say, "You didn't get a finding for one of those." >> Uh but um but isn't it true that if we if and again, I'm I'm not voting yet. If
we were to grant the finding that the 20 by 20 deck with the with the roof is not detrimental, that even if there's a second deck, that wouldn't be detrimental either. So he he Ralph would probably not issue another cease to this
because that doesn't affect the finding. That wouldn't require another finding. >> I think we should make it clear that it's the bottom deck that we're approving. >> No, I think you ought to make it clear it's all of them. >> Yeah. >> Because if you don't, you're going to you're going to end up in we won't if you if you grant it the um the butter
will come and then the applicant will have to be involved in it because they're going to say it's ambiguous. I think you still need a finding on one of those decks. I don't understand. I, you know, I don't know which one, but if you're only going to do, you know, my brother's gonna argue like he just did,
and I I I I get his argument, is that he >> the the the the applicant didn't put down both decks >> and the roof structure. >> So, if you grant one deck 20 by 20, the other one is is is not granted. So I would suggest that when you make your
finding that you make a finding that if you approve it that you approve that this structure right here is not more detrimental to the neighbor. I would use this. I mean you can you can >> this has this this has the the measurements on it. >> Yeah. Well this is AI all you want I
guess. And but this is what's on the >> and and I I guess you are right. If it's got if it's got dimensions on it it's probably better. I have a question for attorney. >> That's what I was asking before. So, >> I have a question for attorney Blake.
Uh, is it um legally important for us to consistently use the term substantially detrimental as the law does? >> I think I think you Let me look at your >> It says it in the zoning. >> Probably substantially more. Yeah, I I
do. Yep. I think we shore-handed >> because Yeah, because we keep saying detrimental and that could squeeze something. >> Shall not be substantially more detrimental is what your bylaw says. So, yes. Yeah, I think we always shorthand it, but yes.
>> I don't know. I I I find I find people that don't get proper permitting and just build sort of what they decide they're going to build. Um, I think doing that in general is
detrimental to the neighborhood. I think it's I think it's detrimental to the town. Um, I think it's substantially detrimental when >> that's a building inspector's that's not our job. >> That isn't our job. The building
inspector has a job to do. We can't supersede his responsibility. We can't substit. >> He's gonna have to go back with new plans to Ralph and then Ralph's re-evaluate this whole project, >> which and he may or may not issue a
building permit. And if he doesn't issue a building permit, then I don't really know what happens. >> But we cannot take over the responsibility of either the building inspector or the concomin guard rails of what we have. authority and responsibility to do
>> I mean I would love to be able to solve all the town's problems >> on the zoning board but that we but we can't >> then I'm not just because you know I'm not saying that there isn't issues in the whole process here um I think there
could be clarification I think there could be more staffing um but that's not you know holding somebody accountable because of the deficiencies of the town
is not something we can do. I mean, I think that would be malicious, probably actionable. So by um uh attorney Blake by uh doing
granting what you're saying by saying uh this covers everything back there does that cut off you were talking about there are three ways that the um that the abutters could come back and
um bring this back for more clarification and more decisions. Would what you're doing would that cut off those >> so >> those means? >> I I I said that you could ask for zoning enforcement, >> right? You you could put a finding in
there, but if there was another zoning reason, then the then the butters could come after. Um but and frankly, I I think that even the neighbors don't care about this. I think it's the front that's where we're going to go. >> Um appealing the building permit. I
suppose you could still appeal the building permit. The the basis for appeal of the building permit would likely be that you didn't get a finding. Um so yeah, it would it would cut off some of those arguments? Yep. Yep. >> And you think that that's Yeah.
>> an ethical thing to do, >> but I think it's an ethical thing to do. >> That's not We're not We're not here to do ethics. >> I think it's a legal thing to do. >> Yeah. >> Two very different things aren't related. >> Two very different things. I don't know if they're not related. I I think
sometimes a lot of people have issues with with the law and ethics, but I think on the whole if you look at it and you step back and you understand it, I think the law is out there to to make it fair and to protect everybody and and
everybody uh go by a certain set of rules. I understand your your issue of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. Um, but at the same time, as I think I said the last time, there are provisions in the building code that would allow an after the-act building uh
permit uh to be issued, but they can also get up to what is it? Three times the cost, right? In this town, five times. >> Five times the cost. So, if it's a $350 building permit, it's times times five. And you know, ultimately if Ralph
decides after he sees blueprints and whatever, he says, "Well, you know what? I'm not issuing that permit. Take it in." That >> you do run the risk of of that happening. I I will admit it doesn't happen very often. There's a famous case
up in Marblehead where a guy ignored the town, ignored the town, ignored the town. Um, ultimately the town prevailed at the appeals court and then up at the SJC and a $9 million home had to be taken down. I don't know if it ever was. I don't know if they ever uh uh came to
an uh an agreement on it, but I do know that the court he had exhausted everything and he was going to be taking the building down. That's what the order was. So there's extremes. >> The uh the three uh courses of action
that you just mentioned, do they all or or any of them uh involve coming back to us or to a court, the building inspe you know the building permit? It would depend on what he's appealing
the building permit on to the extent, you know, it would depend. Now, there's an interplay between the building permit uh appeal and a request for zoning rel zoning enforcement. There they're they're almost one and the same. There's
case law out there that says in some instances and a butter can't just sit on their hands, let the building be built, and then appeal and then ask for zoning enforcement. But um to answer your question, if it's zoning enforcement, Ralph would make a decision. He would
get a letter saying, "I want you to enforce this zoning." And we actually have just got one. Um and he says, "Nope, I think it's fine." Feels right up to you. Ralph says, "Yep, you're right. Tear it down." He appeals up to
you. Um, >> so you're just saying when they can appeal the building permit, it's the original building permit and is >> it will be the original. >> Isn't time have hasn't time passed? >> It has there. So that's why I'm saying that you're into play. Although there
may need to be a new building permit issued under this. >> Oh, this there will be, right? Because it's substantially bigger than the original building permit. >> Y >> didn't the butter say last week that she had no problem? >> Correct. >> Correct. And and is that correct? You have no
problem with the back deck. >> That's we're not talking to >> We can ask a question. >> Right. You just said we can ask a question to the to to Right. >> I think we've already been through this. So, >> but you know, well, she can either say yes or no. I mean,
>> okay. Uh, anybody else comments? >> I asked my question. >> Make a motion. >> Well, how do we do we have to do this in a negative or something? No, it's >> okay. It's positive. >> I will Well, we always do it anyway, but
I'll make a motion to grant >> again, this is only a motion the construction of I'm going to read exactly the uh uh the petition so that we can then if want to modify it, we can modify it. Uh, I make a motion to grant a finding that construction of a 20 foot
x 20 foot elevated deck addition attached to the existing dwelling with roof structures not substantially more damnamental than the existing non-conforming use of the neighborhood. Again, that's a motion. Anybody want to uh make a an uh an
>> I'd like to make an amendment >> amendment to the motion >> that I'd like to move to grant the petition for a 20 by 20 uh lower elevated deck and a
upper deck of 12 by 20 with a 8x 20 bumpout from the uh original house structure. I second that. >> We have a discussion
>> as evidenced by the commissioner. >> Okay, we have um we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. >> I abstain. >> One abstain. So it uh it passes four uh
with four votes. Um, there is a 20-day appeal process, so don't start doing anything for 20 days. Uh, obviously, the first thing you're going to have to do is update your drawings and get it back to Ralph. Absolutely. >> And then whatever, Ralph, I mean, we may see you again soon.
>> Uh, thank you all for coming. I mean, this is, you know, this is that can be a tedious process at times, but I'm I'm glad that you all came and and participated. So, thank you all very much. Gotcha. Uh, while Ralph is here tonight, could
we clarify something? Nothing. >> Sorry about that. >> Broken. >> I know. >> Nothing to do with this here. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Uh, last week we had u
uh something that involved uh square footage, a ghost square footage. >> Oh, yeah. >> Remember that? >> Yes. Yeah. the u there seems to be >> um not total clarity on that especially
with the new laws >> and what that means. >> Yeah. And so what I'd like to ask from Ralph because he's really where the rubber hits his road. Okay. Uh what he determines as gross uh square footage.
>> What do you include in gross square footage? New the new ADU says it 900 >> gross square footage. >> Correct. >> Correct. Right. >> Excuse >> if you want if you want to take if you want to take the if that's not on the
agenda. Be very careful. >> Just on the meeting agenda. >> Okay. >> So maybe we should make that take this offline. Okay. >> Can we make that as a discussion point the next time Ralph's going to be here? >> Right. I I'm not sure that it's not on the agenda. >> No, it's not. Well, not on the agenda,
but when I leave, let's put it on the >> I would like to put that on the agenda as well. >> Why not? >> Yeah, we we do need to clarify that >> in a time in which Ralph can can be here. >> And I didn't mean to I I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
>> Okay. Um is there any other any other business? >> Town town meeting coming up in a couple of weeks. >> May 5th. >> May 5th. May 5th, right? >> Not even a couple of these. >> I think the planning board um
>> and there's a lot of zoning issues. >> I saw I saw that. I was like, how did they get in my papers somehow? >> Well, I figured that since we were meeting before the planning board um was meeting that we could catch it on the agenda and that's on that gnome circle.
>> Yeah. >> This doesn't require a public hearing for us. >> No, but I have to put it on the agenda for you to discuss. Right. So, that's what I'm saying. >> Mhm. Oh, >> thank you. Pleasure. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff.
>> Oh, I never looked at that. >> The town meeting is what? The >> 5th. Tuesday. >> Tuesday the 5th. >> Oh, this is a site plan approval for a low impact development. Yeah, I had emailed the board about that because I wasn't sure at the time this hearing was
not scheduled. >> Um, >> so you toss So you tossed it on. >> All of the members made a couple of comments. >> So since this was scheduled, I figured I'd put it on. >> So anybody have comments on this? >> Nope. >> We don't usually
>> I do have a question. Uh, and I guess I can answer this. Yeah, because it's on the >> it it mentions I I believe five campground type facilities. >> I don't think he this is the planning board. >> So, he doesn't he doesn't have that yet.
>> He's not found. >> Well, well, I think you could still Is there such a thing uh as >> Sorry, you're not going home quite yet. They're wanting to put five structures from I don't know the precise
words but but uh uh for a parent and a and a child to stay overnight or maybe more than one overnight uh and and they called it camp ground. I know
that word campground uh let's call it a structure. Um, is there a definition of that? >> No. >> Would you have a definition of that? >> No. I mean, I can look at I mean it if if if a building's got area for preparation of food ever for bathing and
sleeping, then it's considered a dwelling unit. >> Okay. >> Be it ADU, all three. It's going to have those three elements that to be cons under the building code. That's not a zoning issue. It's a building issue. >> Where how they're going to set them up could be a zoning issue.
Okay. >> You know where this is going to happen? >> Where? >> Right across the street. >> Oh, okay. >> Literally, it's in a planning board now. Then it's going to pling board now. >> Yeah. On the back. >> They don't
>> It's in It's in the back behind uh >> behind Kerrion's property. >> Oh, okay. It's it's it's I think >> Well, I think I think I know where it's actually Dr. Ken's property. >> That was That's Kerrion owns that now. No, no. I don't mean that property.
im immediately abuing the uh >> Cland Farms. >> Uh no, the other end. >> Oh, the >> uh uh the um >> the bank. >> No, the medical center. >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, probably why owns it. It's very difficult to find it
on the map. I can tell you that >> because it's zero. >> West family medical center in the back. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think it's a narrow driveway type thing to get to the back. >> Yeah, it's a narrow lot. It opens up in the back. >> Yes.
>> So, evidently that was sold to somebody else that wasn't the person I originally spoke to was going to build a house back there. >> So, if you have a if you have a bathroom shared by five cottages, then >> it's >> not they're not they're not it's not living quarters. That's because you don't have they'd have to spell out
>> they'd have to give me a coach synopsis on what that building what that proposal is. It doesn't sound like it's a dwelling even if it's serving five five cottages. >> It's um it's the gnome. Uh >> yeah.
>> Do they call it the gnome project? Kevin surfing or >> just a gnome? >> Yeah. >> I think that's gnome. Is that >> just kidding? >> Gnome. >> Gnome. >> Gnome. >> Gnome. >> G. >> Anyway,
>> we're getting a little silly now. >> I I think it's a pretty good thing, but >> yeah, >> I'll try to make that known to the planning board. >> Yeah, >> unless uh you want something that would say that we have no objection to it or something. >> But do you have a comment? You can
provide a comment to them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, I think Kevin already has, right? >> You wrote a comment. >> You have no comment. I think it's a great thing. >> I just emailed back. >> Okay. Not >> on the email. No.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. If there's any zoning issues, they'll come before us after it goes to the planning board. So, >> but I don't see >> Well, I I you've got >> I think it's no objection to it. I think it's a great thing.
>> All right. Uh, any other business? Uh, Cynthia, you're up. >> I make a motion to adjourn the hearing. >> I second. All in favor? >> I. and your Ralph.